Burlington Walk-Bike Council

AGENDA - Burlington Walk / Bike Council August 2, 2023, Wednesday 5:30 – 7:00 pm MEETING OPTIONS: 1. In-person - DPW conference room at 645 Pine Street, Burlington 2. Virtually - using Zoom: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88225473951?pwd=YzFFQ1Q3Y3J4bzcwR2VNYWRFWnht UT09 Passcode: 091788 (See other remote access options below) AGENDA: 1. Introductions, Announcements, Updates and Public Comments (10 min) 2. Main Street Connection to South Burlington (40 min) We will discuss potential ideas for linking the Great Streets segment of Main St. ending at So. Union St., to the bike/ped improvements South Burlington will be doing on US Route 2 including the proposed bike-ped bridge across I-89. DPW will present their initial thoughts on the topic, followed by a general discussion. 3. Vision Zero BTV (35 min) DPW staff will be leading a Vision Zero BTV planning process this next winter and spring (Information on Vision Zero) to arrive at a priority list for transportation projects that puts safety first, aiming for zero traffic fatalities. We’ll hear their ideas about the planning process, then discuss it and determine how BWBC can help. Note that Plan BTV Walk Bike recommends adopting a Vision Zero policy as the first item in the Policy and Protocol Action Plan. 4. Next Steps (5 min) Previous Meeting – At the July 5, 2023 meeting participants heard about the barriers to getting walk bike improvements accomplished quickly and identified some steps that BWBC could take to help make simpler projects move along faster, collect data, and engage people to support worthy larger projects. Next Month: BWBC Meets Wednesday, Sept 6, 2023, 5:30 – 7:00 pm The BWBC is an all-volunteer advisory council to the City of Burlington. We work closely with and advise the Department of Public Works and the Department of Parks, Recreation, & Waterfront on infrastructure improvements and policy changes for walking and bicycling. The council also leads advocacy efforts and organizes events and activities that promote and celebrate walking and biking in Burlington and beyond. See BWBC Minutes and Agendas. BWBC Community Liaisons Erik Brown Brotz*, Ward 5, erik@burlingtontelecom.net, Chair Greg Hostetler, Ward 2 Faith Ingulsrud*, Ward 6 Peter Keating, Ward 6 Karen Sentoff, Ward 4 Jason Stuffle*, Ward 1 Kerry Swift, Ward 4 Allegra Williams, Ward 3 * = BWBC Coordinating Committee  Burlington Walk Bike Council (BWBC) August 2nd, 2023 Meeting Notes The monthly meeting took place 5:30- 7:00 pm via Zoom and at the DPW Office. In-Person Attendees: Jak Tiano (VPOP), Gordon Dragoon (VPOP), Jason Stuffle (Ward 1), Faith Ingulsrud (Ward 6), Bob Leidy, Ravi Venkataraman (DPW), Grey Johnson Online Attendees: , Erik Brotz - Chair (Ward 5), Jonathon Weber (Local Motion), Peter Keating (Ward 6), Dayton Crites (DPW) Recording of the meeting. 1. Announcements, Updates and Comments: a. From Ravi: Nelson Nygaard is the consultant on a TDM study that the City Planning Office is running. Already talked to a few stakeholders like Champlain College and UVM. They are also looking to talk with BWBC and VPOP as a focus group. i. Clarification: Transportation Demand Management is a study on how people move in and throughout the city in an efficient way. The study focuses on pedestrians, bicycling, and transit. DPW is hoping this study can help nudge the city in the right direction. ii. They would like representatives for two separate groups, from both BWBC and VPOP.. iii. For anyone that is interested, send an email to Ravi or Dayton. iv. Jonathon, Faith, Erik, and Peter expressed interest b. Chase Street Traffic Calming - Jason reported that the proposal to install chicanes passed 4-to-1 recently c. Jak: final North Winooski bike lane markings should be completed this week d. College Street bike lane has multiple potholes that basically make it unrideable, Jason reported it to SeeClickFix (SCF). e. Grey: Biking on the Shelburne St. sidewalk at the I-189 overpass on the side is doesn’t work because the vegetation is overgrown blocking passage. Discussed the following: i. Determined that Burlington has jurisdiction over that area so the issues can be submitted to SCF. ii. Regional connections on Shelburne St, especially in that area are pretty terrible. 2. Main Street Connection to South Burlington a. Erik: Introduced discussion by explaining that a new bridge for walking/biking is funded in South Burlington that will be located just south of the Williston Road overpass (over I-89). At the same time, Burlington will be soon begin the Great Streets project on Main St. that will include a separated path up to Union Street.  How do we close the gap in creating a safe, regional walk-bike connection between those two areas? b. Dayton presented a map showing the 5 segments of Main Street that are in various states of planning and implementation with the following sequence of segments: i. Downtown Great Streets Project (Battery to Union St.) ii. Union to the University Green at So. Prospect St. 1. Scoping study was done in 2017 but needs an update 2. Should consider a lower cost/lower impact solution such as a mixed use path along this corridor. Currently the plan recommends a 4 million dollar project (estimate would be much higher now) with protected bike lanes iii. Scoping is needed for the segment between University Green and Spear St. and where South Burlington begins iv. South Burlington is currently scoping the connection between Spear and the proposed Pedestrian/Bike Bridge v. The Bridge over I-89 is funded and in the pipeline for construction c. Discussion: i. Bob: There is a bike lane on the top of main (cue laugh track), with the worst part being the crossing at Spear Street. ii. Why scope part 2 and part 3 separately? 1. Dayton: Partially because we need to wait for outcomes from the SB scoping study. Waiting in this case is a subset of coordinating with them 2. Another reason to keep them separate is not to delay the scoping update for segment 2. iii. The 2017 scoping study for section 2 is available here. iv. Jonathan: We should keep the facilities consistent on this corridor if possible, it would be great if the cheaper solution didn’t make pedestrians potentially worse-off 1. Dayton: A good study proposes multiple options, and this study offered only one and that one would require removal of mature street trees, moving curbs and had little community buy-in. v. Gordon: Wondering if we could start conversations with UVM 1. Dayton: Those conversations have started, but aren’t too far along 2. University Place is a good example of a city/university collaboration vi. Bob: UVM wants to reduce the number of cars on campus. Discussed whether having more places people can live nearby could help reduce vehicle traffic vii. Jak: Perhaps thinking about this in a way that is cheaper should be done. Is there another solution that doesn’t cost as much money that can potentially still serve as a solution.  1. For example could Union Street become a dedicated “highway” for bike traffic, restricted to only local vehicles? 2. Basically asking if we could get more for less since it wouldn’t require expensive new infrastructure, just changing the use of existing streets. 3. Dayton: It’s a neat idea for sure. The most difficult thing is how to allow local traffic in this type of situation. viii. Jason: Work with UVM to create a through-campus bike lane for commuters, using streets with low traffic like Summit Street to help keep things cheaper, then cut through the UVM campus from there. ix. Erik: It could connect with the SB path at Gutterson elsewhere, currently the connections are poor. There should be lots of options for biking through campus for commuters and students on both sides of Main St. x. Dayton will be putting together a scoping update, mostly around section 2, but potentially around section 3 1. Will need to update cost estimantes and conduct public meetings to verify approaches 2. Determine whether outcomes can be the same or better with a lower cost approach 3. Vision Zero Plan a. Ravi: The original concept for this was to build off the 2017 PlanBTV WB master plan. As part of this there was a recommendation to make a “Vision 0” plan. This is essentially a shift in mindset, asking the question “How can we reduce the number of automobile crashes to zero?” They have reworded things to focus more on the “vision 0” aspect less than the master plan, so right now the plan is to create recommendations for reducing crashes to 0. i. We’ll need a task force that is going to weigh various stakeholders, PD, city council, BWBC, and others and such. They’ve been trying to discuss outreach and have a lot of data right now, but their main question is how to engage the community and create an effective task force. ii. There is federal funding with this project and a consultant still needs to be hired and such. iii. After all that is said and done, it’s important to get folks together to make a plan b. Dayton: Federal funding requires newer holistic plans, which is at least partially an impetus for this plan c. Conversation: i. Jason: Is it supposed to be zero crashes or zero deaths? 1. It should be more considered zero deaths, crashes are inevitable ii. Jason: Is there any data on how the rotary has gone? He is an advocate for roundabouts and is wondering if we have seen less crashes/injuries with roundabouts  1. Dayton: Stay tuned, currently researching this. There is a lot of data being collected here as it is one of the first roundabouts spearheaded by VTrans iii. Bob: Has done some research on it, it seems it was a popular idea in European countries for a time. We have more fatalities now then we ever had and we need better data. Wants more data to prove whether or not “scrambles (in regards to pedestrians are the way to go” iv. Faith: Curious about how the Vision 0 Plan fits with updating the PlanBTV WB? 1. Ravi: It’s more of an offshoot, it doesn’t really change much in the WB master plan. But it expands on it. 2. Dayton: Funding sources want to see that the city has a Vision 0 Action Plan so it’s a way to prioritize the many tasks that are still left to accomplish in PlanBTV WB. v. Erik: Concerned about the WB Plan being refocused towards Vision 0 and safetu. Increasing the share of bike/walk should be a big part of the conversation as well 1. Dayton: We will definitely need to discuss this, it’s pretty early in the process and things might change. vi. Jonathan: Worried that “perception of safety” could play into things more than they should. 1. Dayton: We’ll definitely have some trouble with data, as we have less to pull from vii. Gordon’s: 1. Good stuff, Europe did this and it was great 2. I assume deaths aren’t just from drivers/passengers? a. Yep, pedestrians and bicyclists included in this 3. Has this had success in other American cities? a. It has had success in other American cities. Lanchester, PA. Boston/Springfield, MA. Lancaster, Somewhere b. Boston has done active monitoring, Atlanta has done revisions as well. viii. Grey: Is the branding of it set-in-stone? 1. Ravi: We have control over it, but effectively it is a “Vision 0” plan so it behooves us to build off of existing ones. Also for solidarity with other cities with V0. 2. There is a laundry list of things that could make up a V0 plan so it can be customized for Burlington. 3. Suggestion made that the project be branded as a PlanBTV WB update with a subtitle indicating that it is a Vision 0 Action Plan. ix. Jak: Lately things have felt a bit more dangerous from an anecdotal perspective, but perhaps that isn’t captured by data. Are there any incremental metrics that could be used in lieu of the binary of death?  1. Faith: Could we use similar roads elsewhere to guide decision making if we don’t have the same level of danger? For example: 4 lane roads in urban settings are generally accepted to be dangerous. 2. Ravi likes the idea of a “scorecard” of sorts, weighing different metrics with different weights 3. Dayton: Currently we are collecting the data, determining which corridors are “high-risk” or otherwise by comparing them to other similar roads/intersections 4. Jason: Since deaths from crashes are rare, how do we collect data around things that are hard to pin-down, like “narrow-misses”? 5. Briefly discussed outreach and possible engagement with Neighborhood Planning Assemblies. x. Discussion on this topic will continue when staff has a more definitive approach to propose.